LAC vs IB: Why India's assessment of the length of border along China is misleading

My article LAC vs IB: Why India's assessment of the length of border along China is misleading appeared in FirstPost.

 Here is the link...

The length given by India's Ministry of Home Affairs (3,488 km) is unfortunately wrong

What is the length of India’s border with China?
You may think that it is easy to answer this question, but unfortunately, it is not.
The Ministry of Home Affairs states: “India has 15,106.7 Km of land border and a coastline of 7,516.6 Km including island territories.” It then gives the length of India’s land borders with neighbouring countries; Bangladesh has the longest border (4,096 km), then China (3,488 km) and Pakistan (3,323 km).

India’s International Border (IB) with China is 4,056 km.
Let me explain why.
The length given by the MHA (3,488 km) is the length of the Line of Actual Control (LAC), not the IB.
The concept of LAC was introduced by the Chinese Premier Zhou Enlai, during a press conference in Delhi in April 1960 (he had earlier vaguely mentioned it at the end of 1959 in a letter to Prime Minister Jawaharlal Nehru).
Zhou proposed six points to solve the border issue; the first two points were:

•     There exist disputes with regard to the boundary between the two sides.
•     There exists between the two countries a line of actual control (LAC) up to which each side exercises administrative jurisdiction.

The fact that the Indian government then rejected the Premier’s proposal is irrelevant to the present argument.
Zhou had come to Delhi to set up talks with India on the boundary dispute. Subsequently, the officials of India and China met for several months during which Delhi made its position clear: “The India-China boundary starts from the tri-junction of the boundaries of India, China and Afghanistan and runs eastward through the Kilik Pass, Mintaka Pass, Kharchanai Pass, Parpik Pass, and the Khunjerab Pass. These passes lie on the watershed between the Hunza river flowing into the Indus system in India and the Qara Chukar river flowing into the Yarkand system in Sinkiang. From the Khunjerab Pass the boundary lies along a spur down to the north-western bend of the Shaksgam or Muztagh river which it crosses at that point and ascends the crest line of the Aghil mountains. It then runs along the crest of the Aghil watershed through the Aghil Pass the Marpo Pass and the Shaksgam Pass to the Karakoram Pass.” The coordinates for each of these places were given.
Historically, there is no doubt that Gilgit-Baltistan (GB) was part of the Maharaja of Jammu and Kashmir’s territory and that the IB presently starts at the trijunction with Afghanistan while the LAC begins at the Karakoram Pass.

Rajnath Singh’s declaration
On 28 October, 2022, Defence Minister Rajnath Singh, while addressing a function in Srinagar to mark 75th year of induction of the Indian Army in Kashmir, reiterated that GB was part of India, though presently under occupation. “India’s development march towards the North will be complete after reaching GB,” he stated.
The minister also referred to the 1994 Resolution passed in the Indian Parliament to recover the territories under illegal occupation of the ‘neighbouring country’. “We have only started our northward journey. Our journey will be complete when we fully implement the unanimous resolution passed by the Parliament on February 22, 1994, and we reach our remaining areas like GB,” said Singh.

A little bit of history
In 1935, the viceroy prevailed upon Maharaja Hari Singh of Kashmir, ‘in the interests of the security of the British empire’ to lease the Gilgit Agency as well as the hill-states Hunza, Nagar, Yasin and Ishkoman for 60 years to the British. Thereafter, Gilgit was administered by the Political Department, with a Political Officer reporting to the viceroy.
The British Paramountcy lapsed on 1 August, 1947, and Gilgit reverted to the Maharaja’s control. Lt Col Roger Bacon, the British Political Agent, handed his charge to Brig Ghansara Singh, the new governor appointed by the Maharaja. A British officer, Maj Brown remained in-charge of the Gilgit Scouts.
On 26 October 1947, after the brutal tribal invasion of Jammu and Kashmir organised by Pakistan, Maharaja Hari Singh signed an Instrument of Accession and joined the Union of India. However, Maj Brown refused to acknowledge the orders of the Maharaja, under the pretext that some leaders of the Frontier Districts Province (in GB) wanted to join Pakistan. He took it upon himself to hand over the entire area to Pakistan on 1 November, 1947.
An interesting announcement was published in the 1948 London Gazette which mentioned that the King “has been graciously pleased… to give orders for… appointments to the Most Exalted Order of the British Empire…” The list included “Brown, Major (acting) William Alexander, Special List (ex-Indian Army).”
Why awarding Brown? Simply because Brown had just ‘offered’ to Pakistan this strategically important area for London.

A British Article
In 2017, an IANS article, When the British poured scorn over Gilgit, explained the background of the 1947 rebellion in Gilgit: “A carefully chosen force capable of rapid movement in the mountainous territory controlled by British officers, the Gilgit Scouts, provided the muscle to the administration.”
The article continued: “The bloodless coup d’etat was planned by Brown to the last detail under the code name ‘Datta Khel’, which was also joined by a rebellious section of the J&K 6th Infantry under Mirza Hassan Khan.”
In his memoirs, Gilgit Rebellion: The Major who Mutinied over the Partition of India, Brown described his encounter with Pakistan prime minister Liaquat Ali Khan in November 1947: “Colonel Bacon, Colonel Iskander Mirza, and I were called into the ante-room. The Pakistan Premier was seated at a desk, poring over a large-scale map of Kashmir and Central Asia. …Mr Liaquat Ali Khan started by congratulating me and thanking me for all I had done in preserving peace in the Gilgit Agency.”
Liaquat then said: “Brown, give me your ideas [for Gilgit] from a military point of view.” The major explained in detail his plans to defend the area by reorganising the Scouts. “Right” said the Premier: “That disposes of the military angle.”
Though there is no doubt about the illegality of the mutiny, one paramount question remains: was the British Headquarters informed?
At the time, the entire Pakistani Army hierarchy was British. So, the answer can only be that Maj Brown’s British bosses were aware of his ‘gift’ to Pakistan. The fact that he was nominated to the OBE is further proof. The King usually does not appoint ‘deserters’ or ‘rebels’ to the august Order.

The length of the IB
Even today, this has serious implications for India, though it does not change the length of the IB (4,056 km), beginning at the trijunction with Afghanistan in the West and ending at the trijunction with Burma (Myanmar) in the east. The report of the officials cited above gives the Indian position in the East: “The boundary crosses the Yonggyap Pass and the Kangri Karpo Pass in this sector. It then crosses the Lohit river a few miles south of Rima and joins the tri-junction of the India, Burma and China boundaries near the Diphu Pass.”

The UN Resolutions
The UN resolutions of 17 January, 1948, and 13 August, 1948, and 5 January, 1949, (UNCIP Resolutions) made it clear that “Pakistan cannot claim to exercise sovereignty in respect of J&K.” In 1963, a secret note from the MEA clarified further that according to the term of the UN Resolutions, “Pakistan cannot purport to exercise even ‘actual control’ over the defence of these areas.”
Practically, it also means that the agreement signed on 2 March, 1963, between Pakistan and China about the Shaksgam Valley of the Gilgit Agency being transferred to China is legally invalid.
Another logical conclusion is that inhabitants of the area if they want to move to India, should be entitled to Indian citizenship.

A British Resolution
Amazingly, in 2017, the British Parliament passed a resolution confirming GB was part of Jammu and Kashmir.
The motion was tabled on 23 March, 2017, by Bob Blackman of the Conservative Party. It reads: “GB is a legal and constitutional part of the state of Jammu and Kashmir, India, which is illegally occupied by Pakistan since 1947, and where people are denied their fundamental rights including the right of freedom of expression.”
Two years later, the new maps released by the Government of India showing the Leh district of Ladakh including the districts of Gilgit, Gilgit Wazarat, Chilhas and Tribal Territory of 1947, made this clear.
Interestingly, the Indian media reported last month: “Amidst news of flour and food crisis across Pakistan, the Pakistan Occupied Kashmir (PoK), GB is again making headlines as residents are furious over the discriminative policies of the Pakistan government that has exploited the region for several decades and are now demanding a reunion with India in Ladakh”, noted India Today, adding: “Several videos on the internet show the extent of the discontent among residents.”
Let us hope that the correct length of India’s border with China will soon be obvious to all.

Gigit-Baltistan, a bit of history

Gilgit-Baltistan (GB) was recently in the news; according to Pakistani media, it will soon become the fifth province of the country. The announcement was made by Ali Amin Gandapur, the federal minister for Kashmir and Gilgit-Baltistan Affairs: “After consultation with all stakeholders, the federal government has decided in principle to give constitutional rights to Gilgit-Baltistan,” the minister said.
It would be elevated to the status of a ‘provisional’ province.
Two commentators wrote in the Karachi newspaper, The Tribune: “With this single move, Pakistan secures vital geostrategic, economic, and energy interests, and at the same time fulfills GB’s most enduring demand for constitutional recognition.”
This just shows that the analysts have probably never read the UN Resolutions of 1948 and 1949 and are obviously proxies for Beijing.

The Scrapping of Article 370
One year ago, the abrogation of Article 370 of the Indian Constitution triggered a lot of typing on the keyboards of Indian as well as foreign journalists. Most of the scribes were ill-informed about the legality of the issue, but generally the Indian press dealt with the subject more decently; it was not so with the foreign press.
Why this perennial misinformation or disinformation?
The Government of India is definitively to be blamed; the Ministry of External Affairs (MEA) should have ‘educated’ the press by giving a full historical briefing on all facets of the issue.
One problem is that the MEA functions today without a Historical Division, (in the 1990s, some smart mandarins thought they knew everything and that this division was not required); South Block should have prepared a “background note on the Kashmir issue and the history of the temporary Article 370 of Indian Constitution”, but probably nobody had time for such niceties. The same applies to GB today.

What are the facts?
A few years ago, I came across a Top Secret note written (probably written by Sir Girja Shankar Bajpai, the secretary-general of the ministry) in the early 1950s. Entitled “Background to the Kashmir Issue: Facts of the case”, it makes fascinating reading. It starts by a historical dateline: “Invasion of the State by tribesmen and Pakistan nationals through or from Pakistan territory on October 20, 1947; ruler’s offer of accession of the State to India supported by the National Conference, a predominantly Muslim though non-communal political organization, on October 26, 1947; acceptance of accession by the British Governor-General of India on October 27, 1947, under this accession, the State became an integral part of India; expression of a wish by Lord Mountbatten in a separate letter to the Ruler the fulfillment of which was to take place at a future date when law and order had been restored and the soil of the State cleared of the invader, the people of the State were given the right to decide whether they should remain in India or not.”
Then the note mentioned the invasion of the State by Pakistan Regular Forces on May 8, 1948. As J&K was part of India, the note said that it was “in contravention of international law. One of the grounds for this military operation, as disclosed by Pakistan’s Foreign Minister himself, was a recommendation of the Commander-in-Chief of Pakistan that an easy victory for the Indian Army was almost certain to arouse the anger of the invading tribesmen against Pakistan.”
Pakistan was not interested in the plebiscite, further they wanted to grab Buddhist Ladakh for the wealth of its monasteries. The note observed “Pakistan, not content with assisting the invader, has itself become an invader and its army is still occupying a large part of the soil of Kashmir, thus committing a continuing breach of international law.”
Pakistani politicians (and others) often quote the UN Resolutions; very few have read them.

The Cease-Fire: a telling event
Following the ceasefire of January 1, 1949, the military representatives of India and Pakistan met in Karachi between July 18 and 27, 1949, under the auspices of the United Nations Commission for India and Pakistan. Before leaving for Karachi, the delegates had a briefing from Bajpai who explained the legal position in detail to the delegates. He told them that the resolution of August 13, 1948 "had conceded the legality of Kashmir's accession to India and as such no man's land, if any, should be controlled by India during the period of ceasefire and truce.” Thus, the Line of Cease Fire (now LOC) was drawn and accepted by Pakistan on this very principle. Islamabad has conveniently forgotten this.

The Case of Gilgit
A few months ago, I came across an interesting announcement published in the 1948 London Gazette which mentioned that the King "has been graciously pleased… to give orders for… appointments to the Most Exalted Order of the British Empire…" The list included "Brown, Major (acting) William Alexander, Special List (ex-Indian Army)."
Who was this officer?
Brown is infamous for illegally 'offering' Gilgit to Pakistan in 1947.
The British Paramountcy had lapsed on August 1, 1947, and Gilgit reverted to the Maharaja's control. Lt Col Roger Bacon, the British political agent, handed his charge to Brig Ghansara Singh, the new governor appointed by the Maharaja. Maj Brown remained in-charge of the Gilgit Scouts.
Despite Hari Singh having signed the Instrument of Accession and joined India, Maj Brown refused to acknowledge the orders of the Maharaja, under the pretext that some leaders of the Frontier Districts Province (Gilgit-Baltistan) wanted to join Pakistan. On November 1, 1947, probably under order from London, he handed-over the entire area to Pakistan.
There is no doubt about the illegality of this mutiny, but was the British Headquarter informed? At the time, the entire Pakistani Army hierarchy was British. So, the answer can only be that Maj Brown's British bosses were aware of his 'gift' to Pakistan. The fact that he was appointed to the OBE is further proof. The King does not usually appoint 'deserters' or 'rebels' to the august Order.
Even today, this has serious implications for India. The UN resolutions of January 17, 1948, and August 13, 1948, and January 5, 1949, (UNCIP Resolutions) make it clear that "Pakistan cannot claim to exercise sovereignty in respect of J&K."
It also means that the agreement signed on March 2, 1963, between Pakistan and China about the Shaksgam Valley of the Gilgit Agency being transferred to China is legally invalid.
Amazingly, three years ago, the British Parliament passed a resolution confirming Gilgit-Baltistan was part of Jammu and Kashmir.
The motion was tabled on March 23, 2017, by Bob Blackman of the Conservative Party. It reads: "Gilgit-Baltistan is a legal and constitutional part of the state of Jammu and Kashmir, India, which is illegally occupied by Pakistan since 1947, and where people are denied their fundamental rights including the right of freedom of expression."
Why doesn’t the MEA publish a White Paper on the background of GB’s accession to India and make it widely known?

Why it is the right time to reclaim Gilgit-Baltistan

Gilgit Scouts (1947)

My article Why it is the right time to reclaim Gilgit-Baltistan appeared in Mail Today/DailyO

Here is the link...

The India-China border is 4,056 km and not 3,488 km, as China would like to believe.

Recently, I came across an interesting announcement published in the 1948 London Gazette which mentioned that the King "has been graciously pleased… to give orders for… appointments to the Most Exalted Order of the British Empire…" The list included "Brown, Major (acting) William Alexander, Special List (ex-Indian Army)."
Who was he? What was this 'special list'? Brown is infamous for illegally 'offering' Gilgit to Pakistan in 1947.
As we debate the question of nationalities after the Citizenship (Amendment) Bill, 2019, was passed by Parliament it raises several questions, including the question of the nationality of the people of Gilgit-Baltistan.

But first, a little bit of history.
In 1935, the viceroy prevailed upon Maharaja Hari Singh of Kashmir, "in the interests of the security of the British empire" to lease the Gilgit Agency as well as the hill-states Hunza, Nagar, Yasin and Ishkoman for 60 years to the British. Thereafter, Gilgit was administered by the political department, with a political officer reporting to the viceroy. In 2017, an article, When the British poured scorn over Gilgit, explained the background of the 1947 rebellion: "A carefully chosen force capable of rapid movement in the mountainous territory controlled by British officers, the Gilgit Scouts, provided the muscle to the administration."
The British Paramountcy lapsed on August 1, 1947, and Gilgit reverted to the Maharaja's control. Lt Col Roger Bacon, the British political agent, handed his charge to Brig Ghansara Singh, the new governor appointed by the Maharaja. Maj Brown remained in-charge of the Gilgit Scouts.
After the brutal tribal invasion organised and supported by Pakistan, on October 26, 1947, Singh decided to sign an Instrument of Accession and joined India. However, Maj Brown refused to acknowledge the orders of the Maharaja, under the pretext that some leaders of the Frontier Districts Province (Gilgit-Baltistan) wanted to join Pakistan. He took upon himself to hand over the entire area to Pakistan on November 1, 1947.
The article said: "The bloodless coup d'etat was planned by Brown to the last detail under the code name 'Datta Khel', which was also joined by a rebellious section of the J&K 6th Infantry under Mirza Hassan Khan."In his memoirs, Gilgit Rebellion: The Major who Mutinied over the Partition of India, Brown described his encounter with Pakistan PM Liaquat Ali Khan: "Colonel Bacon, Colonel Iskander Mirza, and I were called into the ante-room. The Pakistan Premier was seated at a desk, poring over a large-scale map of Kashmir and Central Asia. …Mr Liaquat Ali Khan started by congratulating me and thanking me for all I had done in preserving peace in the Gilgit Agency."

Liaquat the infamous
Liaquat then said: "Brown, give me your ideas [for Gilgit] from a military point of view." The major explained in detail his plans to defend the area by reorganising the Scouts. "Right" said the Premier: "That disposes of the military angle." There is no doubt about the illegality of the mutiny, but were the British Headquarters informed? At the time, the entire Pakistani Army hierarchy was British. So, the answer can only be that Maj Brown's British bosses were aware of his 'gift' to Pakistan. The fact that he was appointed to the OBE is a further proof. The
King usually does not appoint 'deserters' or 'rebels' to the august Order.
Even today, it has serious implications for India. The UN resolutions of January 17, 1948, and August 13, 1948, and January 5, 1949, (UNCIP Resolutions) made it clear that "Pakistan cannot claim to exercise sovereignty in respect of J&K." In 1963, a secret note from the MEA clarified further that according to the term of the UN Resolutions, "Pakistan cannot purport to exercise even 'actual control' over the defence of these areas."

Let's confront China
It means that the agreement signed on March 2, 1963, between Pakistan and China about the Shaksgam Valley of the Gilgit Agency being transferred to China is legally invalid.
Another logical result is that inhabitants of the area, if they want to move to India, should be entitled to Indian citizenship. Amazingly, two years ago, the British Parliament passed a resolution confirming Gilgit-Baltistan was part of Jammu and Kashmir.
The motion was tabled on March 23, 2017, by Bob Blackman of the Conservative Party. It reads: "Gilgit-Baltistan is a legal and constitutional part of the state of Jammu and Kashmir, India, which is illegally occupied by Pakistan since 1947, and where people are denied their fundamental rights including the right of freedom of expression."
One can only hope that Ajit Doval, the Indian interlocutor of Wang Yi, the new Chinese special representative, will point out these historical facts, which means that the India-China border is 4,056 km and not 3,488 km, as China would like to believe. The new maps recently released by the government of India showing the Leh district of Ladakh including the districts of Gilgit, Gilgit Wazarat, Chilhas and Tribal Territory of 1947, make this clear.

Why China is eying Ladakh

My article Why China is Eying Ladakh appeared in Mail Today.
A few years ago, a Ladakhi friend recounted a telling story; one evening he was invited at the Chinese embassy in Delhi. In the course of the party, he enquired with an official that he would like one day to visit Tibet. His interlocutor immediately answered that “there is no problem, everything can be arranged”. My friend was delighted; then he asked: “What about my visa?” The Chinese official retorted: “You don’t need one, you are one of us”.
You can imagine his surprise; I don’t think he applied to go to Tibet thereafter.

An Old Dispute
We can give the Chinese diplomat the benefit of the doubt, he was perhaps not aware of all the bureaucratic niceties, but the story came back to mind after the Chinese ambassador at the United Nations recently gave a press conference, after China distastefully decided to support Pakistan against the abrogation of Article 370 of the Indian Constitution.
Zhang Jun, China’s Permanent Representative to the UN, started by saying that the Kashmir issue should be resolved through peaceful means in accordance with the United Nations Charter and the relevant Security Council resolutions, but he added that India had changed the status quo in Kashmir, causing tensions in the region.
Zhang argued that India had challenged China's sovereignty interests: “I wish to emphasize that such practice by India is not valid in relation to China, and will not change China's exercise of sovereignty and effective administrative jurisdiction over the relevant territory."
Does it mean that Beijing has some sovereign rights over Ladakh?
Chinese Foreign Minister Wang Yi is said to have brought up the same issue with his Indian counterpart, Dr Jaishankar, who adequately answered that no status-quo was changed.
The Chinese ambassador may have opened a Pandara Box: India is now free to speak on the human rights in Tibet, the fate of the Uyghurs in Xinjiang or the aspirations of the Hong Kong population, it however raises another issue: does China consider Ladakh as its territory?
On March 23, 1954, after three months of tough negotiations, the Indian and Chinese representatives were still far from an agreement on trade between India and Tibet (a month later, it would become the infamous Panchsheel ‘accord’, which saw India surrendering all its rights in Tibet without getting anything in return, not even an agreed border).
That day, Ambassador N. Raghavan cabled Delhi that the Chinese had objected to keeping open the old traditional route via Demchok in Ladakh. The Indian diplomat could not understand why.
A month later, on April 24, Raghavan informed Delhi about a fight which took place between him and Zhang Hanfu, his Chinese counterpart: “It was royal fight from beginning to end;” in the process, the Indian diplomats discovered that China had a big problem with Ladakh; it virulently objected to the Ladakh route being included in Agreement; Zhang quoted an oral understanding “[China] would not like in writing even by implication to have any reference to Ladakh,” cabled Raghavan to Delhi. Why?

Passport Wangling
Simply because the mountainous region was considered a ‘disputed’ region, with China claiming part of it; the route has never been reopened since then.
Two years later, Kushok Bakula, the Ladakhi leader expressed his interest to visit Tibet. Being a minister in the J&K government, Bakula had to travel on a diplomatic passport. China objected; in a note, the Ministry of External Affairs explained: “Kushok Bakula occupies an important official position in one of our states and we wish him to be given not only ordinary facilities as a pilgrim but also courtesies due to a Deputy Minister in one of our states.” Delhi had a doubt: did China accept India’s relationship with Kashmir and Ladakh? The affair went on for weeks. TN Kaul, the Indian Charge d’Affaires in Beijing was aware of Beijing’s ambivalence on J&K …and Ladakh: “The Chinese authorities are unwilling to accord any kind of tacit recognition to Ladakh's status as an integral part of India.” After threats to retaliate, Bakula was finally authorized to travel on an Indian passport.


Impasse Prevails
Some may say that it could be ‘coincidences’, but in 2010, the denial of a visa to Lt Gen BS Jaswal who headed the Northern Command looking after J&K, (including Ladakh) was another sign that China still had a problem with the region.
Then another ‘coincidence’, in October 2018, the Army Headquarter invited the defence and military attachés based in Delhi for a tour of Ladakh, including some areas close to the Line of Actual Control (LAC) “in order to familiarise them with the prevailing situation in the forward areas”.
The Chinese Defence Attache declined the invitation without explanation; a year later, his successor happily accepted to join his foreign colleagues in Sikkim and even visited Nathu-la, the border post with China, where he hugged the local Chinese commander. The only difference between the two visits is that Sikkim is not ‘disputed’.
It would worth testing the Chinese again; why can’t Jamyang Tsering Namgyal, the young well-educated MP of Ladakh, apply for a visa for China? Let us then watch Beijing’s reaction.
All this does not augur well for the ‘informal’ meet between President Xi Jinping and Prime Minister Modi in Varanasi in October and before that, for the next round of boundary talks between the Special Representatives, NSA Ajit Doval and Chinese foreign minister Wang Yi.
While Wang already announced that China was looking at ‘early harvest’ in the negotiations and that he had sent some ‘proposals’ to the Indian government, it is difficult to envisage a solution to the vexed issue in the present tense atmosphere entirely created by China.
Is China really interested to find a solution to the border issue?
How to envisage anything positive in the present situation?
China needs to choose either to continue supporting terror in Pakistan, claim Ladakh or solve the boundary dispute.

Why Ladakh needs special status

My article Why Ladakh needs special status appeared in Mail Today/DailyO

Here is the link...

The tragedy is that for decades the leaders of the Valley and now of Jammu, have had a step-brotherly attitude towards Ladakh.

On November 20, news from the high plateau of Ladakh said that Thupstan Chhewang, the lone local MP had resigned from his Lok Sabha seat; hardly a month earlier the BJP had failed to win a single ward in the civic polls in the mountainous region.
Chhewang blamed his own party; he said that his “position became morally and politically untenable because the Centre failed to deliver on promises made during the 2014 Lok Sabha polls.”

Union Territory
In a letter to PM Narendra Modi, the former MP wrote: “All my pleas fell on deaf ears.” He spoke of delay in executing electoral assurances; Chhewang particularly mentioned the Union Territory (UT) status for Ladakh, the plank on which he had been elected (with a thin margin of 36 votes). He reminded the PM about the strength of slogans of five years ago, which now "sound like empty rhetoric".
Chhewang was particularly upset by the fact that the J&K State President Ravinder Raina had declared that the MP was 'opting for spiritual isolation'; “This is far from truth,” he asserted.
The tragedy is that for decades the leaders of the Valley and now of Jammu, have had a step-brotherly attitude towards Ladakh; for most politicians "one" seat is not so important and promises can be broken. These "leaders" forget that Ladakh is perhaps more strategically important than the Valley or Jammu; to neglect the border populations has never been a healthy practice for a nation. China knows this and in recent months has been trying to woo the Tibetan populations on their side of the LAC by building model villages with all sorts of amenities.
The demand for UT status has been a long-standing one. Already in 1949, a delegation of the Young Men’s Buddhist Association of Ladakh led by Kalon Chhewang Rigzin met Nehru in Delhi and presented him a memorandum: “We seek the bosom of that gracious Mother India to receive more nutriment for growth to our full stature in every way. She has given us what we prize above all things — our religion and culture.”
The Ladakhis were delighted to see the Ashoka chakra on the Indian flag; it was the Buddhist symbol of "goodwill for all humanity and India’s concern for her children". Unfortunately, Indian leaders did not respond to Ladakh’s appeal.
In 1989, the Ladakhis had no alternative but to resort to an "agitation", a concept alien to Buddhism. In 1995, after a long struggle, Ladakh was finally offered a Ladakh Autonomous Hill Development Council (LAHDC) as a compromise. Though the chairman and his Executive Councilors (ministers) have vast executive powers on paper, they are often faced with Srinagar holding the purse strings.

Promises broken
Since then, the big-brotherly (not too say arrogant) politics from Srinagar has continued. When the Government of India constituted a three-member interlocutor group to find out the way forward, a proposal separating Ladakh from the Kashmir Division and granting it divisional status was made, but this never materialised. Despite its crucially strategic location, the region has kept its low administrative status.
Another genuine demand from Ladakh has been a university for Ladakh. There is no doubt that a full-fledged university in Ladakh region is needed.
In a letter to the editor in The Daily Excelsior, a young Ladakhi wrote: “In absence of this university, the student community suffers a lot. Students usually have to go other places like Jammu, Kashmir, Delhi and other parts of the country for higher education. This entails a lot of money, which every aspirant here can’t afford.”
While Jammu and the Valley have their own State and Central Universities, Ladakh does not. It is not that the centre has not tried to disenclave Ladakh. Take the Zojila tunnel, the country’s longest Zojila tunnel – once it's completed.
Unfortunately, India’s leading infrastructure finance company (IL&FS), which is responsible for the project, is over Rs 91,000 crore in debt and recently defaulted on payments. Some have suggested rebidding, whatever decision is taken, the project will be delayed.

Urgent requirement
This brings serious doubts about the proposed all-weather motorable road from Manali through Zanskar, though a Border Roads Organisation (BRO) official recently affirmed that the cold desert region will be accessible in all weather conditions. Again an electoral promise?
It is certain that the future of Ladakh cannot be left to the local politicians, whether in Srinagar or Jammu.
Ladakh needs a special status with a chief secretary rank officer posted in the district. Just think that the Army 14 Corps Commander responsible for Ladakh’s defence is headed by an officer of lieutenant-general rank, with some 38 years of experience in the Indian Army. His civilian counterpart is the DC who would be the equivalent of a captain or a major at the most; to make things worse, the DC is also the chief executive officer of the LAHDC, making the situation even more ridiculous.
In these circumstances, the Ladakh Buddhist Association (LBA) organised a mega rally on November 26 to demand "Union Territory Status with Legislature for Ladakh". The meeting pledged that besides the UT demand, inclusion of Bhoti language in the 8th Schedule of the Constitution, declaration of Ladakh as a Tribal Area and establishment of a Central University in Ladakh.
The importance of Ladakh is that due to its geographical location, it has to face two enemies — the Chinese "Liberation Army" in the north and west and Pakistan in the east. It is high time that Delhi wakes up and realises that Ladakh is a "special" place requiring some nurturing.

Tragedy of Kashmir that bleeds us to this day

Maharaja Hari Singh of Kashmir and Sardar Patel

My article Tragedy of Kashmir that bleeds us to this day appeared in the Edit Page of The Pioneer.

Here is the link...

One fateful decision taken by Nehru seventy years ago, much against the advice of Sardar Patel, is still creating ripples in the Indian sub-continent. India continues to suffer for the Kashmir mistake

Seventy years is a long time, but a blunder which took place in the last days of 1947, is still creating ripples in the sub-continent. I am speaking of Kashmir. On October 20, 1947, the Indian State of Jammu & Kashmir was invaded by tribesmen and Pakistani nationals from bases inside the Pakistan territory.
Six days later, Maharaja Hari Singh offered to sign the instrument of accession of his State to the Indian Union. The following day, on October 27, the British Governor-General of India accepted the offer; thereafter, the State became an integral part of India.
In a separate letter to the ruler, Mountbatten expressed a wish that the people of the State should be given the right to decide whether they should remain in India or not. This was to take place at a future date when law and order had been restored and the soil of the State cleared of the invaders.
In the following weeks, the situation continued to worsen; on December 19, in a note on Kashmir, former Prime Minister Jawaharlal Nehru noted: “there has been a progressive deterioration and the initiative appears to have been with the enemy most of the time.”
Even the pacifist Prime Minister realised the seriousness of the situation: “What is happening in Kashmir State is not merely a frontier raid but a regular war, on a limited scale, with the latest weapons being used on the part of the invaders.” Nehru continued: “This type of operations can continue for months and months and years without bringing any result. The longer they continue the greater harm they cause to India.”
He agreed that only solution for India was a military action which meant hitting at the raiders, their bases and supply lines in Pakistan.
When Lord Mountbatten, the Governor General, realised the possibility of a change in India’s policy, he decided to act quickly. Since the beginning of the crisis in Kashmir, he had wanted to give the United Nations a say in the matter. But for India, the mere fact of appealing to the United Nations meant creating a ‘dispute’ where there was no dispute; the Kashmir maharaja, like more than 500 other rulers, had acceded to the Indian Union. The fact that Pakistan has organised an armed invasion of Kashmir was a separate issue; the accession of Kashmir was indeed legal, Mountbatten had himself accepted it in writing.
But if India was to declare a war on Pakistan, it would have many consequences for Great Britain and Mountbatten’s career. First, the British officers, serving in the armies of the two dominions, would have to resign; the ‘stand down’ order issued by London was clear on this. The British generals were not vital for India, since the indigenisation of the Army had made great strides since August 15; however, it would have serious consequences for the Pakistanis who were totally dependent on the British officers.
Another consequence was that Mountbatten would probably lose his job, it was impossible for a Briton to be the Head of a State at war against another member of the Commonwealth (ie Pakistan).
As Mountbatten started putting pressure on Jawaharlal Nehru to refer the issue to the United Nations, a distressing incident took place in Delhi. Though legally, the issue of Jammu & Kashmir was under the Ministry of States headed by Sardar Patel, Nehru decided to take over the Kashmir file. We shall see the consequences.
On December 23, using the excuse of 150 motor vehicles being sent from East Punjab to Kashmir by the States’ Ministry, the Prime Minister wrote to Patel: “I do not appreciate the principle which presumably the States Ministry has in view in regard to its work. That Ministry, or any other Ministry, is not an imperium in imperio, [a state with the State] jealous of its sovereignty in certain domains and working in isolation from the rest.”
This was totally unfair to Patel.
But Nehru argued that Kashmir was connected with international, military and others issues “which are beyond the competence of the States Ministry as such.”
Patel immediately decided to resign; he told Nehru that the latter’s letter “has caused me considerable pain …In any case, your letter makes it clear to me that I must not or at least cannot continue as a Member of Government and hence I am hereby tendering my resignation.”
Unfortunately, on Gandhi’s intervention, Patel had to withdraw his resignation, but thereafter he had no say on important decisions on Kashmir. This would have tragic consequences.
Once Patel was out of the way, Mountbatten could act; he asked the British High Commissioner in Delhi to inform Attlee of the catastrophic military situation for India and that if Uri and Naushara fell, there would be nothing he could do “to stop the Indian forces from marching in West Pakistan.”
The problem was that Mountbatten, as Chairman of the Defence Committee, was privy to all Delhi’s decisions. He could not tell Attlee, the British Prime Minister, to directly write to Nehru, by referring to plans that Attlee was not supposed to know. Mountbatten, therefore, suggested that Nehru should himself keep Attlee informed of the situation.
Naively, the Indian Prime Minister wrote to Attlee to explain to him that India had no alternative but to attack Pakistan; the last thing His
Majesty’s Government wanted to see was the end of Pakistan as Attlee knew very well that as soon as the war would break out, all British officers would have to leave both dominions.
He replied the same day to Nehru that his Government was very much disturbed by the fact that India believed it had the right to enter Pakistan, even in self-defense. Attlee knew Nehru well enough to play on a very sensitive point: That world opinion would condemn him and India.
Probably also influenced by Edwina Mountbatten, Nehru fell into the trap; he wrote a complaint to the United Nations. But by accepting Mountbatten’s suggestion to unveil India’s plans to Attlee, Nehru committed a major blunder, and Patel could not intervene anymore.
On December 28, 1947, in a letter to Lord Mountbatten, Nehru wrote: “In view of the great importance of the step we are contemplating regarding a reference to the United Nations, we had a special meeting of the Cabinet today to consider it.” A ‘draft reference’ was approved and a copy sent to the British Prime Minister.
The next day, Vallabhbhai Patel was informed “I am sending you separately a copy of a telegram sent yesterday to the Prime Minister, UK, in regard to Kashmir. We held a meeting of the Cabinet yesterday afternoon when we considered this telegram and the draft reference to UNO.”
Patel had been sidelined and the harm was done. Seventy years later, India is still suffering from the blunder then committed.
Such a tragedy!

Kashmir is Indian. Is Tibet really Chinese?

Let the Tibetan and Chinese flags fly over Lhasa

My article Kashmir is Indian. Is Tibet really Chinese? appeared in the Edit Page of The Pioneer.

Here is the link...
 
Comrades in the Middle Kingdom must learn from their history and be prepared. New Delhi can be ‘neutral' but also side with the Tibetans, especially if Beijing continues to side with Pakistan’s terrorist activities
In April 2015, President Xi Jinping paid his first State visit to Pakistan.
The friendship between the two nations was ‘higher than mountains, deeper than oceans, sweeter than honey, and stronger than steel,” said the billboards in Chinese and English in Islamabad.
The Washington Post remarked: “Xi arrived in Islamabad bearing real gifts: an eye-popping $46 billion worth of planned energy and infrastructure investment to boost Pakistan's flagging economy.”
It sounded like a Chinese Dream for Islamabad!
Beijing had decided to open a China-Pakistan Economic Corridor (CPEC), which would link up Xi’s pet project, the two New Silks Roads (also known as ‘One Belt, One Road’); through the Karakoram Highway, the Chinese-sponsored port of Gwadar on the Arabian Sea would connect to the Xinjiang province in China’s Far West and Central Asia …and later Middle East, Africa and Europe.
The ‘corridor’ would have railways, roads, optical fiber cables, dams (to produce the necessary electricity), pipelines!
Pakistan was China’s perfect docile ‘partner’; it was geographically ideally positioned with an access to the sea in the South and to Central Asia in the North.
It was of course before Prime Minister Narendra Modi’s August 15 speech. From the ramparts of the Red Fort, he asserted: “The people of Balochistan, the people of Gilgit, the people of POK have thanked me in such a manner, from places that I have never been and never had a chance to meet, they have sent wishes to the people of India and thanked us... I am grateful to them.”
During the previous weeks, Pakistan had been trying hard to bring the Kashmir issue on the world scene, by sponsoring an uprising in the Valley.
Now China realizes that their CPEC project might not go as smoothly as planned.
In less than a week, Beijing had twice to deny Islamabad’s claim that it backed Pakistan’s views on Kashmir. Beijing even asked India and Pakistan “to engage in dialogue to properly resolve disputes, including the Kashmir left over from history.”
The Pakistani press had earlier reported that Yu Boren, the Chinese Consul General in Lahore had said: “In case of any [foreign] aggression our country will extend its full support to Pakistan.” Yu had apparently stated that “the aspirations of the Kashmiris’ should be taken into account in resolving the Kashmir issue”.
Clearly, Beijing does not know how to react to the new situation.
Several Chinese experts claimed there was "no evidence to prove Pakistan is behind the Uri attack" and that “irrational decisions [from Delhi’s side] would complicate India's relations with Pakistan.”
When Home Minister Rajnath Singh announced that the 3,323 km Indo-Pakistan border would be completely sealed by December 2018, Hu Zhiyong, a scholar at the Institute of International Relations of the Shanghai Academy of Social Sciences told India Today: “[India’s] decision reflects its Cold War mentality, and would only cause deeper hatred among residents living in Indian and Pakistan-controlled Kashmir.”
In the meantime, Beijing remains opposed to India’s entry in the Nuclear Supplier Group (NSG) and is not moving an inch towards supporting Delhi on the listing of Masood Azhar, the Jaish-e-Mohammed chief as a ‘terrorist’ in the UN.
In these circumstances, it would be good to remind China of the case of Tibet. While Beijing regularly threatens Delhi that if the activities of the Tibetan refugees are not roped in by Delhi, despite its declared ‘neutral’ stance, China itself fully sides with Pakistan on Kashmir.
Delhi could also be ‘neutral’ but side with the Tibetans.
In 2012, when Beijing began issuing stapled visas for Kashmir residents, China wanted to make a point: Beijing does not recognize J&K as an integral part of India. A visa was denied to Lt Gen BS Jaswal, Northern Command boss, to attend a preplanned defense meeting in Beijing. The Chinese Embassy stated that the General was serving in the ‘sensitive location of Jammu and Kashmir’ and ‘people from this part of the world come with a different kind of visa’.
If Beijing continues to play with the ‘Kashmir’ issue, Delhi could easily play the Tibet card.
Four years ago, BJP leader Yashwant Sinha stated during the Zero Hour in the Lok Sabha that China has been carrying out the 'grossest' violations of human rights in Tibet over the last 60 years. The former External Affairs Minister said that Tibetans were disturbed by "excessive use of military force, religious restrictions, disappearances and detentions, removal of nomads and degradation of ecological system in the region under Chinese rule."
Take Article 370 of the Indian Constitution; India could ask for a similar clause to be applied to Tibet; the Tibetan issue, according to the aspiration of the Dalai Lama and the Tibetan people, would be solved.
Article 370 mentions that except for Defence, Foreign Affairs, Finance and Communications, the Indian Parliament needs the State Government's concurrence for applying most of the other laws.
Today a citizen of J&K lives under a separate set of laws, including those related to citizenship, ownership of property, and fundamental rights.
When the Dalai Lama asks for 'genuine' autonomy for Tibet, he does not ask for more than that. Can you imagine Tibet with its own Constitution?
J&K has its own flag, Tibet had its own flag too.
Dharamsala would be delighted.
Further in J&K, Indian citizens from other States cannot purchase land or property, can you imagine the consequences of a similar clause for Tibet?
If people from Han nationality were not allowed to acquire properties on the Roof of the World or start business ventures in Lhasa or other large cities (in Nyingchi prefecture, north of the McMahon Line in particular), tensions and resentment would immediately diminish greatly.
People of J&K have their own 'citizenship' in the form of a State-subjectship with its own privileges; for example, a non-State-subject can't study in a university in Kashmir.
Imagine Tibet with its own Legislative Assembly or local Parliament (not a fake one as today in Tibet, but an elected one) …and federal laws from Beijing would have to be ratified by elected legislators in Lhasa!
One need to remember however that there are basic differences between Tibet and Kashmir. Tibet has for centuries managed its own affairs, Tibet was an independent State before 1950 with Representatives of India, Nepal, Bhutan and China operating from Lhasa.
Kashmir has always been part of the Indian subcontinent and Kashmiriyat remains an important aspect of Indian civilization. It is not the case of Tibet, where the language, script, religion and culture have their own identity, entirely different from the Chinese.
The comrades in Beijing should learn their history and be prepared for Delhi raising sooner or later the Tibetan issue, especially if Beijing continues to side with the terrorist activities of its ‘all-weather friend’.

It’s in China’s interest to realise Indian concern

Joint exercises between China and Pakistan in POK (Khunjerab)

My article It’s in China’s interest to realise Indian concern appeared in the Edit Page of The Pioneer


Here is the link...

One Belt One Road is a great initiative, but it’s not an easy one. What looks like a masterstroke on paper, will turn into a nightmare for both China and Pakistan if India is not brought on board

When Prime Minister Narendra Modi met Chinese President Xi Jinping at the G20 Summit in Hangzhou in China, he is believed to have raised the topics of terrorism originating in Pakistan as well as the mega China Pakistan Economic Corridor (CPEC) project. Modi told Xi that New Delhi and Beijing must be sensitive to each other’s ‘strategic concerns’, which include terrorism from Pakistan, the CPEC crossing through Pakistan-occupied-Kashmir (PoK) and India’s membership in the Nuclear Suppliers Group.
Though Foreign Ministry spokesperson Vikas Swarup did not confirm if Modi raised the NSG issue: “I am not going into specifics, but if you read between the lines, you can pretty well understand that when we talk of strategic interests and aspirations,” he said that the Indian Prime Minister advocated that “to ensure durable bilateral ties, and steady development, it is of paramount importance that we respect each other’s aspirations, concerns and strategic interests.”
When in 2013, President Xi first spoke of a project “envisioning a trade and infrastructure network that would connect Asia with Europe and Africa along the ancient land and sea routes,” very few realised that the One Belt One Road (OBOR) ‘initiative’ had many similarities with the 19th century’s great game. At that time, the OBOR’s declared objective was to increase connectivity between Europe, Asia and Africa. However, a simple look at a map shows that practically, India is left out of the scheme while the creation of several economic corridors mainly benefited China.
Steve Levine wrote in Quartz magazine that the infrastructure that the British built everywhere during the 19th century “enabled their power like bones and veins in a body. …Great nations have done this since Rome paved 55,000 miles (89,000 km) of roads and aqueducts in Europe. In the 19th and 20th centuries, Russia and the US established their own imprint, skewering and taming nearby territories… Now it’s the turn of the Chinese.”
The OBOR is an essential part of the great rejuvenation of the Chinese nation, the ‘Chinese Dream’, often described by Xi.  President Xi can say that the OBOR “will serve the long-term interests of all countries involved in the Belt and Road Initiative,” but trade and geopolitical control have always worked hand in hand.
Chinese experts say that the project can benefit 4.4 billion people in more than 60 countries, or 63 per cent of the global population …if everyone agrees to participate, which is far from being the case. For Pakistan, the CPEC, a crucial constituent of the OBOR, can be a game changer … if it happens.
The architects of CPEC are aware that PoK is the plaque tournante for controlling the Belt and the Route; the 2,700-kilometre corridor stretching from Kashgar to Gwadar will link two worlds: Central Asia (via Xinjiang) in the north and Europe and Africa (via the maritime route) in the south.
In April 2015, when Xi arrived in Islamabad, he brought with him a munificent gift for Pakistan: An eye-popping $46 billion worth of planned energy and infrastructure investment to boost Pakistan’s flagging economy. This included 10,400 megawatts to Pakistan’s national grid through coal, nuclear and renewable energy projects. It sounded like a Chinese Dream for Islamabad!
The Corridor will have railways, roads, optical fiber cables, dams, pipelines, you name it! Observers marveled at Beijing kindness (and wealth), though Chinese generosity may first and foremost benefit Beijing! But as the project crosses Indian territory in PoK, it is unacceptable for India, which has no say in the ‘initiative’. Delhi could not pretend that nothing is happening and forget about the legality of the accession of Jammu & Kashmir State to India in 1947.
On August 28, Pakistan’s Prime Minister Nawaz Sharif asserted that the CPEC would help bring prosperity to the entire region (read Pakistan). Sharif, who was addressing the inaugural session of the CPEC Summit in Islamabad, remarked that “the economic corridor project is the most important economic initiative for South Asia in the 21st century.”
According to Pakistan Today, he affirmed: “The CPEC is not merely a strategic decision but the culmination of 10 years of brotherhood and cooperation between China and Pakistan” before concluding: “Our relations with China are of the utmost importance.”
Incidentally, it appears that the Pakistan’s Cabinet has recently approved a long-term defence agreement with China. The Express Tribune reported that the approval was given by Sharif on July 15 after his return from London. The Cabinet would have agreed to a summary draft agreement to enhance defence and security cooperation with China in several fields.
On August 15, Modi’s speech touched a raw nerve in Islamabad and Beijing. On the previous day, Pakistan’s Independence Day, Sharif had dedicated his country’s independence to the ‘freedom of Kashmir from Indian rule’. During the previous weeks, Pakistan had been racking up the Kashmir issue on the world scene.
For the past few months, while India is tired of Beijing’s ‘neutral’ stance on Kashmir, China has been unhappy with India’s lukewarm attitude towards the OBOP and the CPEC. The situation has got worse after the August 15 speech. Liu Zongyi, a senior fellow of Shanghai Institutes for International Studies commented in The Global Times “India’s political goals hinder cooperation with China on the OBOR"”
After quoting former Prime Minister Manmohan Singh and National Security Advisor Shivshankar Menon who would have expressed ‘support and interest’ to the initiative, the author says: “the current Prime Minister Narendra Modi changed India’s attitude toward the project after he came into power.”
Hu Shisheng, the director of the Institute of South and Southeast Asian and Oceanian Studies said in an interview that China will have ‘to get involved’ if any Indian ‘plot’ disrupts the CPEC in restive Balochistan, the influential Chinese think-tank warned India. This is a serious threat. The presence of General Raheel Sharif, Pakistan’s Chief of Army Staff (COAS) was in Urumqi, Xinjiang to discuss military relations, bilateral security cooperation for the CPEC, raised further the suspicion.
Saeed Shah wrote in The Wall Street Journal, “Can you image that a Pakistani brigade of 2,000 soldiers has to guard Chinese workers in Gwadar from the threat of jihadists and separatists, reflecting the challenge of turning this remote fishing town into the hub of an economic corridor between the two nations.”
It is a great, but not easy game. What looked like a masterstroke on paper could turn into a nightmare for both China and Pakistan unless India is taken on board. But how can Pakistan continue to fuel unrest in the valley (with the silent consent of China) and simultaneously get Delhi’s blessings for such a gigantic project? Today China and Pakistan are gambling. China has to understand India’s concern; ultimately it is in the interests of the Middle Kingdom.

Pictures of joint Sino-Pakistani exercises in PoK

 

Neglected Ladakh: 64 years ago!

A much-publicized All Party delegation has just paid a two-day visit to Jammu and Kashmir.
Of course, Ladakh was not in the program.
A release of the Press Information Bureau (PIB) says that after Srinagar on the first day, the next day the delegation went to Jammu where “the delegation met over 200 persons in about 18 different delegations from various sections of society.”
Addressing media persons in Srinagar, the Home Minister Rajnath Singh remarked that all parties have agreed that the situation in Jammu and Kashmir should improve at the earliest. He also noted that the delegation’s talks with the various sections in J&K have been fruitful.
Various sections minus Ladakhis!
Though an officer of the Ministry of Home Affairs (MHA) has now been nominated as the Nodal Officer to address the grievances of people of Jammu and Kashmir, it remains that Ladakh once again has not been mentioned.
The neglect of Ladakh is not new as we shall see.
(Though to be fair, the Modi Sarkar has recently started to work on an ambitious plan to link Leh-Ladakh with railway network. The government has handed over the responsibility of the survey work for Bilaspur-Mandi-Manali-Leh railway line to the Rail India Technical and Economic Service (RITES). Delhi already released Rs 40 crore out of the total Rs 157 crore allotted for the survey work.)

In April 1952, a letter from Sonam Wangyal, a resident of Leh (Ladakh, Kashmir) ended on the desk of the Prime Minister.
The original had been sent to “the Editor of the Times of India, New Delhi.”
It makes interesting reading.
It is entitled: “Utilisation of Prime Minister’s Funds for Leh”.

Here is the letter:

Of all the areas affected by the tribal raids in Kashmir Zanskar an unaccessible and extremely backward part of Ladakh has probably suffered the most. With the exception of the village Padam which has a 40% Muslim population, the entire area is exclusively inhabited by the Buddhists. When Kargil fell to Pakistan the Muslims of Padam anticipating the entry of an Indian force from Lahoul made it their first business to invite Pakistan troops from Kargil. In this they succeeded and what the Buddhist suffered during the occupation of their land by Pakistan, how their Gumpas [monasteries] were looted and desecrated, their women outraged, their men slaughtered and their houses rifted is common knowledge.

Hundreds of them fled to Kulu and a large percentage of them perished during their fugitive wanderings. Several families were clean wiped out. Many who returned after the recapture of Kargil by Indian troops, found all their property gone.
They were still groaning under the devastating blow of a cruel fate, when another dreadful misfortune followed. By a strange irony of fate, it was the very people who had invited Pakistan troops to Zanskar who became instrumental in opening a new chapter of woes for the poor Buddhists of the unfortunate area.
They now, it appears, pretended to be in danger from the Buddhist majority and demanded police protection. The Government readily acceded to their demand and against all precedent, deputed a police force from Kashmir to maintain law and order in Zanskar.
Probably the authorities were unaware that a permanent police force has never before been posted in Zanskar that the people of this area can be aptly described as two-legged sheep and that the establishment of a police showki was like throwing the sheep to wolves. As was to be expected the police force having absolutely no check on their doings started their game of organized pillage and plunder, terrorizing the people with the display of clanging fetters.
In the Lugnak area every family was forced to pay a blackmail of Rs. 60/- and the already ruined people had to sell their surviving sheep and horses to fulfill the demands of the police. Even decrepit old women with nothing to call their own were not spared.
One poor Lama — Lobzong Chhewaing — had retired into seclusion for spiritual exercise and under the custom in vogue among the Buddhist in Tibet could not leave his retreat for the period of retirement. Not to be disturbed, therefore, he sent Rs.100/- (instead of Rs.60/-) in anticipation of the police visitation. But this did not secure him the immunity he expected. The gang came and the Lama had to pay Rs.400/-. From the villages in this area alone the police collected about Rs. 4,000/-.
The last straw was yet to come. Nature now dealt the finishing blow to complete the work of devastation started by man. The crops failed during the current year and famine conditions supervened. When the scanty quantity of food yielded by the soil was exhausted people began literally to eat grass and green mouths could be seen on all sides. In November no vestige even of grass was left and a large scale exodus to Kulu began. Deaths occurred by the score. About a hundred people are still going from pillar to post in Simla, Jogindranagar, Boroth, Bhakda, Kulu, etc., etc.
Thakur Mangal Chand of Lahoul was approached by these stricken people with their tale of woe. He communicated it to Dr. B.S. Bodh who in return approached Shri Rahula Sankrityayana. The latter again brought the whole affair to the notice of the President of India who was pleased to communicate information about it to the Prime Minister Pandit Jawaharlal Nehru.
It is reliably learnt that the Prime Minister, Shri Jawaharlal Nehru, was pleased to sanction Rs. 10,000/- (ten thousand) for relief to the distressed people and that this sum has already been remitted to Kashmir. But, how it has been disposed of, nobody knows. This much is certain that not a pie has reached the hands of the sufferers so far. Nor is it likely to reach them if left to the usual red-tape channels.
If this relief is to benefit the real sufferers it must be distributed through H.H. Kushok Bakola who besides being the President of the Tehsil National Conference Leh is also a representative of Ladakh in the Kashmir Constituent Assembly. May we hope that this will be done, that the excesses of the Police will be duly inquired into and that this force will, in any case be withdrawn and replaced, if necessary by an Indian Military Picket.

Nothing was done, though on April 29, 1952, Kushok Bakula Rinpoche, the head Lama of Ladakh wrote to Prime Minister Jawaharlal Nehru.
On May 3, 1952, Bakula received a communication from the Prime Minister’s Office (from M.O. Mathai, PS to the PM).
About Ladakh ‘associating itself more closely with India’, Nehru informed Bakula that “it is not feasible for a variety of reasons among them being the fact that the whole question of Kashmir is before the United Nations.”
That was 64 years ago.
Many feel that there will always be a reason to ‘privilege’ the Valley, after all they are more noisy.

Here is Nehru’s answer (via his PS):

Dear Sir,
Prime Minister, Jawaharlal Nehru, has received your letter of April 29th. You have based that letter on certain statements made by Shaikh Mohammad Abdullah and others. As a matter of fact, the reporting of that statement was incorrect and has been subsequently rectified.
The Prime Minister appreciates your desire to have close relations with India. Indeed those relations not only of Ladakh but of the whole of the Kashmir State will no doubt become closer in many ways.
Your particular demand for Ladakh to associate itself more closely with India is not feasible for a variety of reasons among them being the fact that the whole question of Kashmir is before the United Nations.
Prime Minister asked me to inform you that there is no reason for any apprehension on your part in regard to Ladakh or Kashmir as a whole.
Yours faithfully
Private Secretary